The ‘default fees’ clause within the Tenant Fees Bill being debated in parliament today should be tightened up to prevent unscrupulous landlords and letting agents taking advantage of the legal loophole it could create, Citizens Advice has claimed.

It recently surveyed 2,000 tenants and found that half had not read their rental contract before putting down a deposit and that a third were not told about additional fees until after handing over their cash.

The Bill, which is going through its second reading today in the House of Lords, includes a default fees clause that will enable agents and landlords to recoup costs and charge fees when tenants ‘default’ on a tenancy agreement.

Tenant fees

Citizens Advice wants peers to today support an amendment to the legislation that would tighten up the definition of when and how tenants can be charged such fees.

“As it stands, the default fee clause has the potential to fundamentally undermine the government’s aim to end tenant fees and prevent unfair practices,” the charity says.

“The possibility for default fees to be abused has been acknowledged by a wide range of bodies, including enforcement agencies and some letting agent bodies.”

Not at the National Landlords Association, though, whose Director of Policy and Practice Chris Norris says: “Removing the default fee clause would push landlords either to seek to recover their costs elsewhere – through higher rents – or to become increasingly discerning about the tenants that they will let to, reducing accessibility of the private rented sector for those who need homes.”

]]>https://thenegotiator.co.uk/tenant-fees-bill-citizens-advice/feed/0Labour’s pet policy is “bizarre choice” says National Landlords Associationhttps://thenegotiator.co.uk/national-landlords-association-labour-pets/
https://thenegotiator.co.uk/national-landlords-association-labour-pets/#respondThu, 08 Mar 2018 09:02:22 +0000https://thenegotiator.co.uk/?p=36535Labour’s recent proposals to give tenants greater rights to live with their pets has been questioned by the National Landlords Association. In a podcast covering a wide range of subjects published today, its Head of Policy Chris Norris (pictured above, right) says he thought Labour’s decision to back the right to keep pets for tenants ...

Labour’s recent proposals to give tenants greater rights to live with their pets has been questioned by the National Landlords Association.

In a podcast covering a wide range of subjects published today, its Head of Policy Chris Norris (pictured above, right) says he thought Labour’s decision to back the right to keep pets for tenants a “bizarre choice”.

“I’ve got to say I despair with this sort of announcement from the Labour party,” he says.

“The NLA is completely neutral when it comes to party politics but of all the things in housing that really demand attention, whether private tenants have the default right to a pet is a bizarre choice.”

Chris went on to say that the policy is puzzling because current legislation and case law means consumers are protected, because landlords cannot refuse a tenant with a pet unless they can give a good reason.

“You can’t put a ‘no pets’ clause into a tenancy agreement and if a tenant asks a landlord about pets and the landlord says no, they must put forward a valid argument why not,” says Chris.

Deposits

He also says the government’s proposals to cap deposits at four weeks will make it more difficult for tenants to bring pets into their homes.

This is because, he argues, in the past many landlords have asked for enhanced deposits from tenants with pets to reflect the extra risk of cleaning a property after the tenant moves out.

Labour has promised to consult landlords on a tenant’s right to keep a pet “unless there is evidence the animal is causing offence”, all part of a push to improve animal welfare in the UK and grasp issues “close to people’s hearts” including a ban on the import of foie gras.

Listen to the NLA’s Chris Norris and Richard Blanco plus The Negotiator’s Nigel Lewis discuss pets and other subjects in the NLA’s latest podcast.

]]>https://thenegotiator.co.uk/national-landlords-association-labour-pets/feed/0NLA questions Right to Rent schemehttps://thenegotiator.co.uk/nla-questions-right-to-rent-scheme/
https://thenegotiator.co.uk/nla-questions-right-to-rent-scheme/#respondTue, 18 Apr 2017 07:48:33 +0000https://thenegotiator.co.uk/?p=25501The Right To Rent immigration control scheme introduced by the government in England last February is not having the “desired effect”, the National Landlords Association says. The comments come from its head of policy Chris Norris in reaction to figures released today showing that one landlord is being fined every four days under the Right ...

]]>The Right To Rent immigration control scheme introduced by the government in England last February is not having the “desired effect”, the National Landlords Association says.

The comments come from its head of policy Chris Norris in reaction to figures released today showing that one landlord is being fined every four days under the Right to Rent rules.

Sixty-two landlords received penalties under the scheme during its first eight months of operation from February to September last year, the figures show.

Fines totalling £37,000 were handed out, or £596 on average per landlord, although fines in theory can reach £3,000 for the most serious cases.

Out of the 62 cases 36 were for lodgers in private houses and 26 were handed to landlords of private rented accommodation. The figures were obtained by the Press Association through a Freedom of Information request.

Chris Norris, head of policy at the National Landlords Association (pictured, left), says he believes that most of the landlords involved are accidentally breaking the immigration rules rather than knowingly doing it.

He also said that “ultimately this scheme should be judged on whether it tackles or prevents those who knowingly ignore the law and let to people who are in the UK illegally, but so far there’s little evidence to suggest it is having the desired effect”.

A government spokesperson said: “Right to Rent deters people from staying in the UK when they have no right to do so. We regularly meet with representatives from the private rented sector, such as local authorities, landlords and housing charities, to discuss and monitor the scheme.”

Common nationalities

Separate figures published by referencing company Rent4Sure show also reveal today that the most common nationalities seeking rented accommodation in England are those from India, Romania and Italy, followed by those from Spain and the US.

The company, which processes 30,000 tenant references every month, says 7% of all its tenant applicants were foreign nationals.

“If we want to continue offering a warm welcome to people from across the world, the Government must work with landlords and letting agents to enable the buy-to-let sector to thrive and remain an asset to the UK economy, at the same time as providing the right types of property to serve everyone in the UK market,” says Rent4Sure director Luke Burton (pictured, right).

]]>https://thenegotiator.co.uk/nla-questions-right-to-rent-scheme/feed/0Lettings fees ban WILL go ahead, says DCLGhttps://thenegotiator.co.uk/lettings-fees-will-banned-says-dclg/
https://thenegotiator.co.uk/lettings-fees-will-banned-says-dclg/#respondFri, 07 Apr 2017 12:22:15 +0000https://thenegotiator.co.uk/?p=25270The lettings fee ban is set to go ahead. The Government has announced its intention to introduce a total ban ands agents across the UK will not be able to charge any fees to tenants for their services, if the Government’s proposals are implemented. This isn’t a case of rattling cages to get the message ...

]]>The lettings fee ban is set to go ahead. The Government has announced its intention to introduce a total ban ands agents across the UK will not be able to charge any fees to tenants for their services, if the Government’s proposals are implemented.

This isn’t a case of rattling cages to get the message through to agents that their fees may be disappearing, if they do not receive suitable responses from the consultation – today’s publication of the Consultation Paper leaves us in no doubt that there will be a total ban on lettings fees, as stated by Baroness Hayter (right) last week at the arla|propertymark Conference, it is just a matter of when and how it is implemented.

Within the document, the Department for Communities and Local Government (DCLG) says, “DCLG officials undertook some market research of letting agent fees. We randomly chose 50 agents of differing sizes and models (i.e. franchises, independents and national branches) across the country and searched their website for a list of letting fees charged to tenants.

This exercise reinforced how difficult it is for tenants to both find and compare agent fees since it was not always simple to either find the fees on the agent’s website or to understand exactly what was included in them.

“The findings demonstrate that the fees charged to tenants vary considerably amongst agents, even though the services provided are broadly similar, and that in some instances the fees charged can be significant. Generation Rent’s findings also demonstrate the inconsistency in fees charged. They found that, for two tenants, reference check fees ranged from £20 to £570; charges for tenancy agreements ranged from £48 – £480; inventory costs ranged from £50-£216.”

On the basis of a random sample of just 50 agents, the whole letting agency sector will be hit by a total ban on lettings fees…”

So, it seems that on the basis of a random sample of just 50 agents, the whole letting agency sector will be hit by a total ban on lettings fees, mainly because the fees are inconsistent.

Strangely, it isn’t relevant that fees are inconsistent for pretty much every service any person ever requires. Many spring to mind – council tax, parking fees, council owned leisure facilities, train and bus travel… and equally variable is the quality of services provided by those suppliers.

So why the focus on lettings fees? Paragraph 47 declares:

Rationale for introducing a ban

Whilst most letting and managing agents provide a reputable service, a minority of agents offer a poor service and engage in unacceptable practices. Some agents may be motivated to act in their own interests, which may be contrary to the interests of the tenant or landlord. Some letting agents exploit their role as an intermediary between the tenant and landlord by imposing unfair charges on the tenant or double charging tenants and landlords for the same service. Shelter’s 2013 report found that nearly one in four people in England and Wales feel that they’ve been charged unfair fees by a letting agent.

While Paragraph 80 also warns against any ideas of hidden charges to tenants:

Increase in rents

Agents will need to consider their business models in light of the ban and consider how they should charge for their services. The time of, and services provided by, letting agents should be reimbursed but this should be by landlords rather than tenants. We would not expect the full level of tenant fees that are charged currently by letting agents to be passed on to landlords since there is evidence that a number of agents are charging excessive fees and that some agents are double charging landlords and tenants.”

Industry bodies respond

David Cox, Chief Executive, ARLA Propertymark, said, “The Government’s housing policy is shambolic and today’s consultation contradicts its already stated aim to encourage longer term tenancies. Independent analysis launched at ARLA Propertymark’s annual Conference last week revealed that if an outright ban was introduced, rents will increase by £103 per year which will only serve to financially punish long term tenants.

“The decision is a short-term crowd pleaser and we are disappointed DCLG has not considered our proposals in today’s consultation. We urge the Government to use this process to think again to ensure that consumers, and the wider economy are not penalised by contradictory Government policies.”

Chris Norris, Head of Policy at the National Landlords Association (NLA), said, “We’re particularly concerned that the scope of this consultation appears to have drifted to include tenancy deposits, with suggestions that a ‘cap’ may now be necessary. This looks like yet another attempt to affix a sticking plaster to a perceived problem without really understanding what is driving behaviour in the real world”.

Richard Price, Executive Director of UKALA, said, “Small agents are drowning in constant policy interventions. The publication of this consultation in isolation, at a time when we’re awaiting further proposals on requirements for all agents to hold client money protection insurance, is proof that this Government does not have a clear vision for the future of the sector.

“If they really want to completely regulate letting agents then why waste time by constantly moving the goal posts?”